New study suggests a temperature drop of up to 1°C by 2020 due to low solar activity

sc24 and historyFrom the HockeySchtick:  A paper published today in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics finds long solar cycles predict lower temperatures during the following solar cycle. A lag of 11 years [the average solar cycle length] is found to provide maximum correlation between solar cycle length and temperature. On the basis of the long sunspot cycle of the last solar cycle 23, the authors predict an average temperature decrease of 1C over the current solar cycle 24 from 2009-2020 for certain locations.

Highlights

► A longer solar cycle predicts lower temperatures during the next cycle.
► A 1 °C or more temperature drop is predicted 2009–2020 for certain locations.
► Solar activity may have contributed 40% or more to the last century temperature increase.
► A lag of 11 years gives maximum correlation between solar cycle length and temperature.

The authors also find “solar activity may have contributed 40% or more to the last century temperature increase” and “For 3 North Atlantic stations we get 63–72% solar contribution [to the temperature increase of the past 150 years]. This points to the Atlantic currents as reinforcing a solar signal.”

A co-author of the paper is geoscientist Dr. Ole Humlum, who demonstrated in a prior paper that CO2 levels lag temperature on a short-term basis and that CO2 is not the driver of global temperature. 

The paper:

The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24

Jan-Erik Solheim Kjell Stordahl Ole Humlumc DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2012.02.008


Abstract

Relations between the length of a sunspot cycle and the average temperature in the same and the next cycle are calculated for a number of meteorological stations in Norway and in the North Atlantic region. No significant trend is found between the length of a cycle and the average temperature in the same cycle, but a significant negative trend is found between the length of a cycle and the temperature in the next cycle. This provides a tool to predict an average temperature decrease of at least View the MathML source from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 for the stations and areas analyzed. We find for the Norwegian local stations investigated that 25–56% of the temperature increase the last 150 years may be attributed to the Sun. For 3 North Atlantic stations we get 63–72% solar contribution. This points to the Atlantic currents as reinforcing a solar signal.


 

1. Introduction

The question of a possible relation between solar activity and the Earth’s climate has received considerable attention during the last 200 years. Periods with many sunspots and faculae correspond with periods with higher irradiance in the visual spectrum and even stronger response in the ultraviolet, which acts on the ozone level. It is also proposed that galactic cosmic rays can act as cloud condensation nuclei, which may link variations in the cloud coverage to solar activity, since more cosmic rays penetrate the Earth’s magnetic field when the solar activity is low. A review of possible connections between the Sun and the Earth’s climate is given by Gray and et al. (2010).

Based on strong correlation between the production rate of the cosmogenic nucleids 14C and 10Be and proxies for sea ice drift, Bond et al. (2001) concluded that extremely weak perturbations in the Sun’s energy output on decadal to millennial timescales generate a strong climate response in the North Atlantic deep water (NADW). This affects the global thermohaline circulation and the global climate. The possible sun–ocean–climate connection may be detectable in temperature series from the North Atlantic region. Since the ocean with its large heat capacity can store and transport huge amounts of heat, a time lag between solar activity and air temperature increase is expected. An observed time lag gives us an opportunity for forecasting, which is the rationale for the present investigation.

Comparing sunspot numbers with the Northern Hemisphere land temperature anomaly, Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) noticed a similar behavior of temperature and sunspot numbers from 1861 to 1990, but it seemed that the sunspot number R appeared to lag the temperature anomaly. They found a much better correlation between the solar cycle length (SCL) and the temperature anomaly. In their study they used a smoothed mean value for the SCL with five solar cycles weighted 1-2-2-2-1. They correlated the temperature during the central sunspot cycle of the filter with this smoothed weighted mean value for SCL. The reason for choosing this type of filter was that it has traditionally been used to describe long time trends in solar activity. However, it is surprising that the temperature was not smoothed the same way. In a follow up paper Reichel et al. (2001) concluded that the right cause-and-effect ordering, in the sense of Granger causality, is present between the smoothed SCL and the cycle mean temperature anomaly for the Northern Hemisphere land air temperature in the 20th century at the 99% significance level. This suggests that there may exist a physical mechanism linking solar activity to climate variations.

The length of a solar cycle is determined as the time from the appearance of the first spot in a cycle at high solar latitude, to the disappearance of the last spot in the same cycle near the solar equator. However, before the last spot in a cycle disappears, the first spot in the next cycle appears at high latitude, and there is normally a two years overlap. The time of the minimum is defined as the central time of overlap between the two cycles (Waldmeier, 1939), and the length of a cycle can be measured between successive minima or maxima. A recent description of how the time of minimum is calculated is given by NGDC (2011): “When observations permit, a date selected as either a cycle minimum or maximum is based in part on an average of the times extremes are reached in the monthly mean sunspot number, in the smoothed monthly mean sunspot number, and in the monthly mean number of spot groups alone. Two more measures are used at time of sunspot minimum: the number of spotless days and the frequency of occurrence of old and new cycle spot groups.”

It was for a long time thought that the appearance of a solar cycle was a random event, which means that each cycle length and amplitude were independent of the previous. However, Dicke (1978) showed that an internal chronometer has to exist inside the Sun, which after a number of short cycles, reset the cycle length so the average length of 11.2 years is kept. Richards et al. (2009) analyzed the length of cycles 1610–2000 using median trace analyses of the cycle lengths and power spectrum analyses of the O–C residuals of the dates of sunspot maxima and minima. They identified a period of 188±38 years. They also found a correspondence between long cycles and minima of number of spots. Their study suggests that the length of sunspot cycles should increase gradually over the next View the MathML source. accompanied by a gradual decrease in the number of sunspots.

An autocorrelation study by Solanki et al. (2002) showed that the length of a solar cycle is a good predictor for the maximum sunspot number in the next cycle, in the sense that short cycles predict high Rmax and long cycles predict small Rmax. They explain this with the solar dynamo having a memory of the previous cycle’s length.

Assuming a relation between the sunspot number and global temperature, the secular periodic change of SCL may then correlate with the global temperature, and as long as we are on the ascending (or descending) branches of the 188 year period, we may predict a warmer (or cooler) climate.

It was also demonstrated (Friis-Christensen and Lassen, 1992Hoyt and Schatten, 1993 and Lassen and Friis-Christensen, 1995) that the correlation between SCL and climate probably has been in operation for centuries. A statistical study of 69 tree rings sets, covering more than 594 years, and SCL demonstrated that wider tree-rings (better growth conditions) were associated with shorter sunspot cycles (Zhou and Butler, 1998).

The relation between the smoothed SCL and temperature worked well as long as SCL decreased as shown inFig. 1. But when the short cycle SC22 was finished Thejll and Lassen (2000) reported a developing inconsistency. In order to explain the high temperatures at the turn of the millennium, the not yet finished SC23 had to be shorter than 8 years, which was very unlikely, since there had never been observed two such short cycles in a row (see Fig. 1). They concluded that the type of solar forcing described with this SCL model had ceased to dominate the temperature change. Since the final length of SC23 became 12.2 years, the discrepancy became even bigger.
Full-size image (18 K)
Fig. 1.

Length of solar cycles (inverted) 1680–2009. The last point refers to SC23 which is 12.2 years long. The gradual decrease in solar cycle length 1850–2000 is indicated with a straight line.

5. Conclusions

Significant linear relations are found between the average air temperature in a solar cycle and the length of the previous solar cycle (PSCL) for 12 out of 13 meteorological stations in Norway and in the North Atlantic. For nine of these stations no autocorrelation on the 5% significance level was found in the residuals. For four stations the autocorrelation test was undetermined, but the significance of the PSCL relations allowed for 95% confidence level in forecasting for three of these stations. Significant relations are also found for temperatures averaged for Norway, 60 European stations temperature anomaly, and for the HadCRUT3N temperature anomaly. Temperatures for Norway and the average of 60 European stations showed indifferent or no autocorrelations in the residuals. The HadCRUT3N series showed significant autocorrelations in the residuals.

For the average temperatures of Norway and the 60 European stations, the solar contribution to the temperature variations in the period investigated is of the order 40%. An even higher contribution (63–72%) is found for stations at Faroe Islands, Iceland and Svalbard. This is higher than the 7% attributed to the Sun for the global temperature rise in AR4 (IPCC, 2007). About 50% of the HadCRUT3N temperature variations since 1850 may be attributed solar activity. However, this conclusion is more uncertain because of the strong autocorrelations found in the residuals.

The significant linear relations indicate a connection between solar activity and temperature variations for the locations and areas investigated. A regression forecast model based on the relation between PSCL and the average air temperature is used to forecast the temperature in the newly started solar cycle 24. This forecast model benefits, as opposed to the majority of other regression models with explanatory variables, to use an explanatory variable–the solar cycle length–nearly without uncertainty. Usually the explanatory variables have to be forecasted, which of cause induce significant additional forecasting uncertainties.

Our forecast indicates an annual average temperature drop of 0.9 °C in the Northern Hemisphere during solar cycle 24. For the measuring stations south of 75N, the temperature decline is of the order 1.0–1.8 °C and may already have already started. For Svalbard a temperature decline of 3.5 °C is forecasted in solar cycle 24 for the yearly average temperature. An even higher temperature drop is forecasted in the winter months (Solheim et al., 2011).

Arctic amplification due to feedbacks because of changes in snow and ice cover has increased the temperature north of 70N a factor 3 more than below 60N (Moritz et al., 2002). An Arctic cooling may relate to a global cooling in the same way, resulting in a smaller global cooling, about 0.3–0.5 °C in SC24.

Our study has concentrated on an effect with lag once solar cycle in order to make a model for prediction. Since solar forcing on climate is present on many timescales, we do not claim that our result gives a complete picture of the Sun’s forcing on our planet’s climate.

About these ads

144 thoughts on “New study suggests a temperature drop of up to 1°C by 2020 due to low solar activity

  1. Dang, I wanted a big clue to mechanism. Maybe it’s in the hemispherical asymmetry of the sunspots.
    ========

  2. This article begins – “A paper published today in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics.

    but looking at the link to the paper it states -

    Volume 80, May 2012, Pages 267–284

    2012, not today ?

    WTF

    I see scepticle science rebutted this paper (corectly or otherwise) back in December 2012

    what gives?

  3. Oh phuleeze.

    Science, we don’t need no stinkin’ science!

    Can we run a bet on when the first freeze is???

  4. Speaking of lag time, I often wonder how much of today’s CO2 is a result of the medieval warm period . The lag numbers are close (600 – 800 yrs ago) but I have found no studies based on this possibility

  5. Sniffing places that have minimal direct local human influece on readings?

    The Sun is the only real true player in the end, no?

  6. I don’t quite get this post. It’s an old one. Did it have legs and get into another journal?

  7. “New study suggests a temperature drop of up to 1°C by 2020 due to low solar activity”

    Burn the heretic!

    Kill it with fire!

    For Great Justice!

  8. The sun has nothing to do with it. Nothing. The temperature drop will be because of fearless leader’s visionary mandates.

  9. “Volume 80, May 2012, Pages 267–284
    2012, not today ?
    WTF”

    My apologies – for some odd reason this paper came up today on my RSS feed from the Journal of Atmospheric & Solar-Terrestrial Physics, which in the past only feeds new articles published online the same day, therefore I incorrectly assumed that it was published today. The original post has been updated to reflect the publication in 2012. The Feedly RSS reader service I use was hacked a couple of days ago so perhaps this had something to do with the erroneous RSS feed.

    My apologies for the erroneous date of publication.

  10. For Svalbard a temperature decline of 3.5 °C is forecasted in solar cycle 24 for the yearly average temperature. An even higher temperature drop is forecasted in the winter months (Solheim et al., 2011).
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

    Well at least the paper makes a bold and hence falsifiable prediction. 3.5 degrees between now and 2020 ought to start making itself visible in the temperature record in just a few years if the prediction is accurate. So kudos to them for putting something specific in their paper instead of just a bunch have hand waving that could be interpreted to mean almost anything.

    That said, I for one just cannot envision a physical mechanism that would enable this result. Absent a physical driver, this is at most just a correlation.

  11. Nick Stokes said June 13, 2014 at 8:23 pm:

    There was a post about this paper at WUWT here.

    NO. That article started by mentioning the paper called “The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24″ that was dated February 2012 and parked at arxiv.org, then the guest poster went on about his similar study.

  12. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    June 13, 2014 at 10:12 pm
    “NO. That article started by mentioning the paper called “The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24? that was dated February 2012 and parked at arxiv.org.”

    Same title, same authors. Same abstract, as written in the post.

  13. From Nick Stokes on June 13, 2014 at 10:31 pm:

    Same title, same authors. Same abstract, as written in the post.

    You had said:

    There was a post about this paper at WUWT here.

    Article says:

    I fully support the findings of Jan –Erik Solheim , Kjell Stordahl and Ole Humlum and their very recent paper called The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24 dated February 2012. The abstract reads:
    [abstract]
    Before finding the above paper on WUWT, I had recently done a similar and slightly different analysis.

    And the paper was never mentioned again.

    So the article was “I support what they said, I did something like that and here is what I got.”

    Thus it wasn’t about the solar paper, it was about what the guy had done.

  14. Here is a good visual on how the planets revolve around the sun. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex283trHBgE&feature=youtube_gdata_player or are you a flat Earther ?.I see a strong plasma line when Earth gets out in front of the Sun and a strong bombardment when we pass through the Suns tail . When we get out in front we create a eclipse and are drawn closer (Hot) period and as we are on the opposite side as we pass through the tail we get pushed away (cooler) this process happens every 11 years.

  15. Analysis presented is a bit misleading and numerically not entirely convincing. Interaction of solar and terrestrial cycles is next to impossible to disentangle, but a combination of two gives an absolutely clear output .
    Question of underlining physical mechanism (with all intermediary stages) is unlikely to be unlocked at any time soon.
    What it can be said, is that on the decadal time scale result of the combine variability is about + or – 0.1C ( also postulated by Dr. S) and on the multidecadal scale + or – 0.3C.
    Neither of two is going to produce catastrophic warming or cooling. I would suggest that for either of two ‘possible scenarios’ variability in the Earth’s parameters on (multi) millennial time scale bare sole responsibility.

  16. I see two problems: 1. They’re already beginning to run out of time for their predicted temperature drop for solar cycle 24. We’re already halfway through. 2. The AMO is also turning and if there is a temperature drop, it must be attributed correctly. We might have to wait until 2030 before understanding well the turn of the AMO.

  17. Polar vortex during winter accelerates thanks a temperature gradient in the the zone of the ozone. Any changes to ozone under the influence of solar activity affect the speed of the vortex. Weak vortex is one of the main causes of cool.

    The temperature gradient between the center and the shore of vortex at a height of 30 km exceeds 30 degrees C. Vortex name is misleading, since the polar vortex expands in the direction of the troposphere. Changes in ozone are visible after around a week after the change in the magnetic activity of the sun. When solar activity increases vortex accelerates.

  18. I’m sorry, but I don’t find this study credible. For starters, they say:

    An even higher contribution (63–72%) is found for stations at Faroe Islands, Iceland and Svalbard.

    I’m sorry, but I’m not buying that the temperatures in the Faroe Islands is 60%-70% ruled by the length of the previous solar cycle from 11 years ago. There’s nothing I’ve ever seen that has that kind of clear relationship. I would be astounded if this finding holds up.

    Finally, I am inherently suspicious of the claim that there is NO effect from the varying intensity of the ~11-year sunspot/magnetic/solar wind/cosmic ray cycle … but on the other hand there is some big effect from the varying length of the cycles.

    Among other problems, if there were a detectable relationship between temperature and say cosmic rays, the units would be degrees per 10^6 neutrons, or something like that. But if the variable is cycle length in years, then we end up with units of degrees per year …

    Finally, they say:

    • A longer solar cycle predicts lower temperatures during the next cycle.

    I don’t understand how this is supposed to work. So … we’re going along in this solar cycle, and it’s cold because the previous solar cycle was short. But then we pass solar minimum (maximum?) and we’re into a new cycle. And suddenly, it’s much warmer, because the last solar cycle (which ended say a year ago) was longer … and somehow, that’s supposed to affect the temperature, not for the 11 years during which the sun was stronger, but during the next 11 years … riiight …

    But if so … where is the extra energy coming from to make the globe warmer?

    Now, in general, it is true that longer solar cycles tend to be stronger cycles. So, you could claim that the extra energy comes from the extra strength of the longer cycles.

    But that just brings us back where we started, to the claim that the earth is responding to the strength of the solar cycle, not the length of the cycle … and the authors have specifically disowned that claim in favor of the idea that it’s affected by length, not strength.

    In any case, I haven’t seen anything new in the parts of the study quoted above. If I can get hold of the original, I’ll look at their methods, if I can stomach it. Anyone who cites Christensen/Lassen is not to be trusted …

    Before reading it, I’ll bet right now that they’re using Gleissberg’s 1-2-2-2-1 filter or some other bizarre smoothing, that they’ve given correlation results based on smoothed data, and that they haven’t adjusted for either autocorrelation or the number of trials …

    Regards to all,

    w.

  19. Despite old news(2012) there is a lot of interesting things in it. First the timeframe, 2020, from 2015 on the temperature should start to drop since solar maximum is now passing.
    If this would turn out to be true, correlation, what’s the cause?

  20. ANY cooling would be big news. We’ve been promised it’s just around the corner for years and years (and years) with its attendant apocalyptic consequences. But even with the conjunction of signs in the Sun and Natural Cycles, the inconvenient truth is that we’re still waiting

  21. It’s odd that a solar cycle is considered to be ~11 years when it takes ~22 years for the magnetic fields of the Sun to complete a cycle.

    I can understand the confusion in the 1600′s based on counting the sunspots.

    Oh wait – this is climatology.

    Where the mean temperature deviation is calculated by first fabricating a mean based on a bundle of biases and prejudices, using the forged mean to calculate the deviation and then calling it an anomaly.

    Of course, you could remove the artificially induced trend in the surface temperature anomaly but then you would be 2 time series beyond the original surface temperature series (where the 2 subtraction operations – one to create the anomaly and one to remove the artificially induced trend leads to a loss in precision which amplifies the noise.)

    And then there’s the automated cooking and cooling of the raw temperature…

    But I digress..

  22. Village Idiot:

    There is an obvious typographical error in your post at June 14, 2014 at 1:27 am which says in total

    ANY cooling would be big news. We’ve been promised it’s just around the corner for years and years (and years) with its attendant apocalyptic consequences. But even with the conjunction of signs in the Sun and Natural Cycles, the inconvenient truth is that we’re still waiting.

    I assume you intended to discuss reality so meant to write
    ANY WARMING would be big news. We’ve been promised it’s just around the corner for years and years (and years) with its attendant apocalyptic consequences. But even with the conjunction of signs in the Sun and Natural Cycles, the inconvenient truth is that we’re still waiting.

    Richard

  23. A cooling of one degree? No problem – Gavin and Mike can “adjust” that away; piece of cake.

  24. Willis,

    And suddenly, it’s much warmer, because the last solar cycle (which ended say a year ago) was longer

    If I understand the paper correctly that sentence should read:

    And suddenly, it’s much warmer, because the last solar cycle (which ended say a year ago) was longer shorter.

  25. Taking the CET annual data. If you do a trend line for the maximum temperature between 1920 and 1988 it is flat. If you do a trend line for 1990 to 2013 it is flat.

    The minimum trend line between 1920 and 1988 shows a slight cooling and between 1988 and 2013 it shows a cooling.

    Changing the period data by a year can make a big difference in the trend.

  26. Willis said
    Were is the extra energy comming from to warm the planet
    Willis have you ever calculated how many Hirashema bombs are released 24/7 by our wireless com’s and remote sensing. You know things like TV, the mobile phone network , radio ,radar, and many other things is were that extra energy is coming from. Temperature = electric potential at work . Why should the electronics industry be allowed to abuse the atmosphere as part of their own infrastructure?

  27. In reply to:
    Transport by Zeppelin says:
    June 13, 2014 at 7:43 pm
    This article begins – “A paper published today in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics. but looking at the link to the paper it states – Volume 80, May 2012, Pages 267–284 2012, not today ?
    WTF
    I see skeptical science rebutted this paper (correctly or otherwise) back in December 2012

    William:
    We are re-looking at that paper to see if its prediction of high latitude cooling is correct or incorrect.

    There is now observed cooling both poles.

    Predicted first significant higher than average summer ice in the Arctic.

    Summer high latitude temperatures are again significantly lower than average.

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

    There is significantly more Antarctic sea ice for all months of the years (record Antarctic sea ice and record amounts for all months of the year than any other time in the 30 year record (two sigma higher than the 30 year average.)

    Does Skeptical Science have an explanation for the sudden cooling of both poles of the planet? What could cause simultaneous cooling of both poles?

  28. Willis Eschenbach says:
    June 14, 2014 at 1:10 am
    Wrong, wrong, wrong. Shorter solar cycles are stronger, longer ones are weaker.

  29. In reply to:
    Willis Eschenbach says:
    June 14, 2014 at 1:10 am
    I’m sorry, but I don’t find this study credible. For starters, they say:
    An even higher contribution (63–72%) is found for stations at Faroe Islands, Iceland and Svalbard.

    I’m sorry, but I’m not buying that the temperatures in the Faroe Islands is 60%-70% ruled by the length of the previous solar cycle from 11 years ago. There’s nothing I’ve ever seen that has that kind of clear relationship. I would be astounded if this finding holds up.
    Finally, I am inherently suspicious of the claim that there is NO effect from the varying intensity of the ~11-year sunspot/magnetic/solar wind/cosmic ray cycle … but on the other hand there is some big effect from the varying length of the cycles.

    William:
    There are cycles of high latitude warming and cooling in the paleo record that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes. There is smoking gun evidence that solar magnetic cycle changes modulate planetary climate. The question is not if there is an effect, but rather how the solar magnetic changes cause the cyclic warming and cooling of the planet.

    As I noted in past posts solar wind bursts remove cloud forming ions. Solar wind bursts are produced by sunspots and by low latitude coronal holes. So if there are low latitude coronal holes on the surface of the sun late in the solar cycle the solar wind bursts remove the ions that are produce by the cosmic rays (cosmic rays CR or galactic cosmic rays GCR, are high speed protons that create ions in the earth’s atmosphere, GCR/CR are partially blocked by the solar heliosphere and by the earth’s magnetic field.) which makes it appear that the solar magnetic cycle changes does not modulate planetary clouds.

    Its is asserted that an increase in planetary clouds is causing the observed cooling of both poles. Any other explanation?

  30. In reply to:
    Village Idiot says:
    June 14, 2014 at 1:27 am
    ANY cooling would be big news. We’ve been promised it’s just around the corner for years and years (and years) with its attendant apocalyptic consequences. But even with the conjunction of signs in the Sun and Natural Cycles, the inconvenient truth is that we’re still waiting

    William:
    The wait is over. There is now observed cooling of both poles. The cooling will increase. We are going to experience the cooling phase of a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle.

    Due to the climate wars the general media has ignored the fact that the signature of the warming in the last 30 years does not match the signature of warming predicted by the AGW theory. The AGW theory predicted that the most amount of warming on the planet should occur at high altitudes in the tropical troposphere. This high altitude warming (due to the increase in atmospheric CO2) if it had occurred would have resulted in more water vapor in the atmosphere at higher levels which would have amplified the CO2 warming. The long wave radiation due to the high altitude warming would then warm the tropics.

    There is no observed high altitude tropic hot spot. This assertion is supported by the fact that the tropic region surface did not warm. i.e. The predicted tropical hot spot causes the tropics to warm.

    http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf

    A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
    We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.

    The observed warming in the last 30 years is almost all high latitude warming which does not match the signature of AGW warming. As the tropics has the most amount of long wave radiation emitted to space, the tropics should have warmed the most due to AGW.

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf

    Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
    The global atmospheric temperature anomalies of Earth reached a maximum in 1998 which has not been exceeded during the subsequent 10 years (William: 16 years and counting). The global anomalies are calculated from the average of climate effects occurring in the tropical and the extratropical latitude bands. El Niño/La Niña effects in the tropical band are shown to explain the 1998 maximum while variations in the background of the global anomalies largely come from climate effects in the northern extratropics. These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. (William: This observation indicates something is fundamental incorrect with the IPCC models, likely negative feedback in the tropics due to increased or decreased planetary cloud cover to resist forcing). However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback. (William: This indicates a significant portion of the 20th century warming has due to something rather than CO2 forcing.)

  31. I see a lot of older papers being used as references. With Leif’s panel on sunspot counting corrections, are those papers using the old sun spot numbers still valid?

  32. I believe the findings of above paper will probably be found to be valid within the time frame specified of 6 more years. There are indications of gradual cooling everywhere (NH and SH winters, Increased polar ice, ect) This will transform to actual global mean surface temperature drop of lets say about 0.4C by 2020. LOL

  33. Paul Homewood said on June 14, 2014 at 2:19 am:

    Where’s Leif?

    Here in the US it’s Flag Day. He is helping out some well-funded fellow US high energy and astrophysics colleagues who will paint The Stars and Stripes on the Moon. Thankfully they only need red and blue lasers, the white parts are already done.

    In the spirit of unity under the banner of science, they’ll help the Brits do the Union Jack at the next Queen’s Jubilee.

  34. Willis says

    “Now, in general, it is true that longer solar cycles tend to be stronger cycles. So, you could claim that the extra energy comes from the extra strength of the longer cycles.”

    Longer cycles are weaker, the sunspot cycle is a proxy and not a good one for attempting to correlate with energy output, mainly because when the Sunspot count goes to zero, it has no relative information about the the strength of the SUNs magnetic field when the count is at zero. But you can be sure that the suns magnetic field and TSI do not drop to the same value everytime the SSN drops to 0. Converting the SSN record to solar cycle length gets rid of the zeros and converts the longer period of low or zero SSN to a value that is more relative to energy output but you must flip the SSL data to see the correlation with temperature.

  35. If one looks at lots of comparisons, some will correlate well, just by chance. The conclusions of this paper may turn out to be valid, but it’s too soon to say. In 5 or 10 years if the paper’s prediction turn out to be accurate, then I will be more persuaded

  36. However, Dicke (1978) showed that an internal chronometer has to exist inside the Sun, which after a number of short cycles, reset the cycle length so the average length of 11.2 years is kept.
    =============
    why does it have to exist within the Sun? perhaps the planets orbiting the sun provide the time-keeping mechanism?

  37. Agree or not, this illustrates that studies even in a journal can be made in support of a conclusion. (PS, Didn’t we just see a slight decline in the US over the last decade in a reliable temp set and is there some physical certainty that a measurable decline by 2020 is impossible?)

  38. Willis writes:
    “Now, in general, it is true that longer solar cycles tend to be stronger cycles.”

    No shorter cycles tend to be stronger.

  39. It is interesting that the solar northern magnetic field intensity two years after reversal has returned to its previous polarity. The solar wind, sunspots, and the solar coronal holes strip the magnetic flux off of the surface of the sun. If the magnetic flux tubes no longer have the magnetic field strength to survive their trip through the solar convection zone the solar large scale magnetic field will drop to very, very low levels.

    http://www.solen.info/solar/polarfields/polar.html

    There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo climatic record that correlate with the solar magnetic cycles (500 year cycle and 1500 year cycle). There are unexplained very, very, large abrupt climate changes (these abrupt climate changes initiate and terminate interglacial periods, the abrupt climate changes have a periodicity of 8000 to 10,000 years and also visible in the paleoclimatic record during the glacial period) that also correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes and that correlate with abrupt unexplained changes to the geomagnetic field.

    In the 1990′s it was discovered for some unexplained reason the magnetic field strength of newly formed individual sunspots was decaying linearly. The sunspots are formed from magnetic flux tubes (there are other competing theories as to what creates sunspots, Livingston and Penn’s observation and the replacement of large sunspots with pores supports the assertion that a tachocline type mechanism is the source of the flux tubes that create sunspots) that are created by some mechanism deep within the sun at the solar tachocline. The magnetic flux tubes rise up to the surface of the sun where they form sunspots on the surface of the sun.

    To avoid being torn apart by the turbulent forces in the convection zone the magnetic flux tubes require a magnetic field strength of around 40,000 gauss when they leave the tachocline (the magnetic flux tubes expand as they rise through the convection and loss magnetic flux, the magnetic field strength of sunspots on the surface of the sun is 2000 to 5000 gauss).
    Observational evidence to support the assertion that the magnetic flux tubes are formed at the tachocline is large integrated sunspots (observed in past solar cycles) are being replaced by regions that contain many tiny sunspots (pores).

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.0784

    Long-term Evolution of Sunspot Magnetic Fields
    Independent of the normal solar cycle, a decrease in the sunspot magnetic field
    strength has been observed using the Zeeman-split 1564.8nm Fe I spectral line at the
    NSO Kitt Peak McMath-Pierce telescope. Corresponding changes in sunspot brightness
    and the strength of molecular absorption lines were also seen. This trend was seen to
    continue in observations of the first sunspots of the new solar Cycle 24, and extrapolating
    a linear fit to this trend would lead to only half the number of spots in Cycle 24 compared
    to Cycle 23, and imply virtually no sunspots in Cycle 25.

  40. [nope, don't see it in here . . mod]

    Ok, I’ll try again:

    See here:

    http://www.newclimatemodel.com/the-link-between-solar-cycle-length-and-decadal-global-temperature/

    From April 2008 and subsequently updated.

    For more detail as to the relevant mechanism, see here:

    http://www.newclimatemodel.com/new-climate-model/

    Changes in solar activity levels appear to alter the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles so as to change global cloudiness and affect the proportion of solar energy that enters the oceans to drive the climate system.

    The balance between El Nino and La Nina changes to cause variations in air temperatures.

  41. jmorpuss says:
    June 14, 2014 at 2:40 am

    Willis said

    Where is the extra energy coming from to warm the planet

    Willis have you ever calculated how many Hirashema bombs are released 24/7 by our wireless com’s and remote sensing.

    Good question, jmorpuss, and the answer is nope … but I don’t have to. The entire anthropogenic energy consumption is about 1/10,000 of the top-of-atmosphere incoming solar energy. As a result, the tiny fraction of that human consumption going into radio waves is meaninglessly small.

    Regards,

    w.

  42. Willis Eschenbach says:
    June 14, 2014 at 1:10 am

    Extra energy comes from the higher proportion of UV in total solar irradiance, and the effects thereof. With TSI about constant, more high-energy UV means less lower-energy visible and IR, along with greater insolation, especially of tropical oceans.

    I would have thought the answer to this question was obvious, now that science has discovered that TSI isn’t spectrally constant.

  43. David Archibald says:
    June 14, 2014 at 3:12 am

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    June 14, 2014 at 1:10 am
    Wrong, wrong, wrong. Shorter solar cycles are stronger, longer ones are weaker.

    Thanks for that, David, and you’re right, moving too fast.

    However, my point remains. You can’t explain away the lack of effect of the strength of the solar cycle on the climate by substituting the length of the solar cycle, because they are well correlated and (obviously) they run on the same time cycle.

    I’ve had time to take a look at the paper. Here were my predictions before opening it:

    Before reading it, I’ll bet right now that they’re using Gleissberg’s 1-2-2-2-1 filter or some other bizarre smoothing, that they’ve given correlation results based on smoothed data, and that they haven’t adjusted for either autocorrelation or the number of trials …

    And indeed, they use 11-year running means of temperatures, and compare them to cycle lengths, which are defined as the period between successive minima. The 11-year running mean filter is likely the worst possible choice for smoothing.

    And indeed, their correlation results are for smoothed data.

    They discuss the effect of autocorrelation of the residuals, but they don’t discuss the effect of autocorrelation of the data itself.

    Finally, they seem totally unaware of needing to adjust for the number of trials.

    I have the Armagh data, so I’ll see if I can replicate their results for Armagh.

    w.

  44. Catherine, please explain the effects thereof. The UV portion does indeed have energy, but far less than solar IR, and visible light. We can calculate how much the Sun’s insolation (the entire spectrum hitting the Earth’s surface), and in particular the much stronger portion of the energy, can affect our climate.

    Consider what would happen when a small change in atmospheric transparency (IE when a really really big volcano goes off and then burps and gurgles) does to Earth. But never mind that, lets get really scared over UV.

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonlinelibrary.wiley.com%2Fdoi%2F10.1111%2Fj.2153-3490.1969.tb00466.x%2Fpdf&ei=pr2cU43SD5eqyAT0mYDACg&usg=AFQjCNFCCxh0vKlGH5j8wVUx5J916cvwYA&sig2=Km97ND9nKkLcJceliIFj8w&bvm=bv.68911936,d.aWw

  45. Pamela Gray says:
    June 14, 2014 at 2:33 pm

    The point, as again I thought would be obvious, is that the UV portion of TSI is elevated for years over its low. This variance, unknown until recently, alone accounts for a big part of the solar influence on climate, unknown when the still ignorant models were designed.

    Factor in solar magnetic effects & atmospheric & surface amplification thereof, & the supposed mystery of the three warming phases of the Modern Warm Period is largely solved.

  46. “However, Dicke (1978) showed that an internal chronometer has to exist inside the Sun, which after a number of short cycles, reset the cycle length so the average length of 11.2 years is kept.”

    The average cycle length is 11.07yrs, and the chronometer is external, there is a very specific planetary progression that causes solar grand minimums and the associated longer cycles. It readily marks which cycles are effected in each solar downturn.

    “Arctic amplification due to feedbacks because of changes in snow and ice cover has increased the temperature north of 70N a factor 3 more than below 60N (Moritz et al., 2002). An Arctic cooling may relate to a global cooling in the same way, resulting in a smaller global cooling, about 0.3–0.5 °C in SC24.”t

    Arctic warming picked up from 1995 with the switch to a warm AMO when solar plasma forcing started waning. The Arctic Ocean region was cooling up till then:

    Hard cooling in the Temperate Zone under increased negative AO/NAO conditions is going to see the AMO and Arctic stay warm.

  47. OK … I give up. I can’t find anywhere in their methods section just how they are doing what they claim. Here’s the problem.

    ORIGINAL CAPTION: Fig. 1.
    Length of solar cycles (inverted) 1680–2009. The last point refers to SC23 which is 12.2 years long. The gradual decrease in solar cycle length 1850–2000 is indicated with a straight line.

    Now, some investigation shows that the cycle length is displayed right at the middle of that cycle. But here’s the part I don’t understand.

    They say that they are using an 11-year “boxcar” moving average, viz:

    As a background for the investigation of possible relations between SCL [solar cycle length] and temperature in sunspot periods, we determined the correlation between SCL and temperature for variable lags of an 11-year time window. We calculated 11 year running mean temperatures for the selected datasets, and correlated this with the SCL with lags from 0 to 13 years, calculated from the middle time for each solar cycle.

    My problem is this. They are comparing an annual value with a greatly reduced dataset. The full annual sunspot dataset from say 1680 on contains about 330 data points. But as Figure 1 clearly shows, the number of cycle lengths for the same period is only 30 data points.

    Now, note that the cycles represented by this string of cycle lengths are NOT equally spaced in time.

    But their study says that they are looking at lags year-by-year … how can you do that when a) the cycle lengths are not evenly spaced, and b) there are only 30 of them?

    There are several possible ways to deal with this.

    One is to only use the mid-years of the cycle, the exact dataset shown in Fig. 1 above, and correlate the 30 data points with the corresponding 30 data points in the 11-year-averaged temperature data. Then you shift over by one year, and correlate that with the next corresponding 30 datapoints in the 11-year-averaged temperature datasets. I suspect that that is how they are going about it, but unfortunately, they haven’t said how they did it. And I’m reluctant to put in too much time if that’s not how they’ve done it.

    There’s an additional oddity, which is that the cycle length data is in months (actually decimal years) and the temperature and lag data are in years. However, that’s not the main issue.

    The main problem for me is their calculation of statistical significance. They are using a bizarre underlying measure. IF they are doing it as I suspect, this is the correlation of ~30 sunspot cycle-length values centered on their respective irregularly-spaced cycles, with a corresponding subset of ~30 11-year-averaged temperature values.

    I know of no way to theoretically estimate the statistics of this situation, in part because the use of irregularly spaced samples, along with using the sample spacing itself as the amplitude, seems guaranteed to muddy the waters. Combine that with using 11-year boxcar averages at the other end, so that the aand we’re well past the statistical event horizon.

    The only way I can see to reliably tell what kind of results we would expect from those strange procedures would be a “Monte Carlo” analysis. Fortunately, in this case it would be pretty easy to do. All you have to do is to shuffle the cycle lengths randomly to create pseudo-cycle-length data, use it in their procedure, and see what the correlations do or don’t look like … but they haven’t done that.

    I’d take a look myself if I knew for sure that was how they did their calculations … but since their description of the method was lacking that section, I’m unwilling to do it only to find out that they used some other method.

    Finally, they’ve totally ignored the data selection issue. Look, they only have 30 data points, which make a very rough 150-year curve. With so few points, the odds of finding some region on this lovely planet with a decent correlation to those thirty pathetic points is quite great. And in this case, the region covered by their Figure 2 is a whopping .. wait for it …

    … the temperature stations cover a whopping 2% of the world’s surface. How about them showing us a random selection of temperature datasets from around the planet, and how well they correspond to the sunspot cycle lengths?

    Until they correct those gaping lacunae, I wouldn’t advise for publication … also, the perennial lack of code and data is getting old.

    Color me under-impressed … another study that’s not ready for prime time.

    w.

  48. Ulric, so what. Lots of things happened during the LIA. Doesn’t mean there is a connection. During the early to late 70′s I got my Bachelors. And it was cold. Doesn’t mean I caused it. To the contrary lolol!

  49. Catherine, no it doesn’t. UV is a very SMALL portion of the variance in temperature related to solar irradiance and insolation. Where are you getting your speculation from? Certainly not physics.

  50. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 14, 2014 at 5:19 pm (Edit)

    Interesting to see that the shortest cycle was in the 1690′s, the coldest part of the Maunder Minimum: http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1364682612000417-gr1.jpg

    Actually, in the dataset that it appears that they used (they don’t actually specify but this agrees completely with Fig. 1), the shortest cycle was 1610.

    However, given the usual idea of shorter = stronger, it is curious that such a short cycle is in the coldest part of the Maunder Minimum. I probably should look at a scatter plot of strength vs length …

    w

  51. @ Willis thanks for the reply
    We can see the process of convection and conduction at work when looking at the sun . Heat is always trying to escape it’s strong electromagnetic pull through convection but as hydrogen cools it turns positive as it looses electrons and is drawn back to the surface to repeat the process.here’s how I see things, Earth has a sun at it’s core ,temperature wise anyway (6000 Deg’s) and is responsible for the heating process here on Earth through the same process we see the sun using, heat trying to escape (convection ) and conduction pulling it back to the surface . The solar wind is cold when it reaches Earths first line of defence , the bow shock, this is were the solar wind meets the resistance created by Earths energy release to space. The surface of the Earth is very conductive and because energy will take the path of least resistance it spreads out the electric potential ,as electric potential builds at the surface it is released as point charges to the atmosphere (low pressure system) mountains are very important for this energy release. If temperature = electric potential at work and temperature decreases with height then the energy released is passive unlike if it is released at sea level were they can spin up and cause tornados and water spouts ,a conduction pathway opens up (AC pathway) when convection stops and conduction takes over ossolation starts driven by negative ions in the up direction and positive ions in the down direction. The temperature of the tropopause (electromagnetic field line) 90 Deg’s to the sun is about 4 Deg’s C . Radio stands for Radiated Electromagnetic Wave and uses conduction to propagate. Why can’t we use rectennas to capture electrons at the antenna to help charge batteries? Solar works on the day side a rectenna would also work of a night. How much energy does the sun supply on the dark side, man pumps terrawatts of heat energy of a night when the sun provides none.

  52. Stephen Wilde says:

    June 14, 2014 at 12:16 pm
    Changes in solar activity levels appear to alter the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles so as to change global cloudiness and affect the proportion of solar energy that enters the oceans to drive the climate system.
    ———————————————————————-

    What would a incremental increase in Earth’s rotation rate, have on the tropospheric height between the equator and poles have?

    THE IERS BULLETIN C
    AND THE PREDICTION OF LEAP SECONDS
    Daniel Gambis*

    http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/futureofutc/preprints/files/42_AAS%2013-522_Gambis.pdf

    page 4
    It appears that, since the year 2000, the Earth is relatively speeding up,
    and the rate of introduction of leap seconds has significantly decreased.

    Figure 3.
    Leap seconds per year between 1972 and 2010 (courtesy of W. Dick8, 2011)

    Addition to figure 3 was 1 leap second added in 2012, making the graph 1972 to 2014 (me).

    Only 3 leap seconds have been added from 1999 to 2014.
    Compare to the 22 leap seconds added from 1972 to 1998.
    Also, appears to follow solar magnetic activity decline of solar cycles 23 and 24. There’s been a decline in high speed wind streams from high latitude coronal holes, slower overall wind speed, lower dipolar fields, fewer sunspots and related geomagnetic disturbances.

    What else happens when the Earth’s rotation speeds up?
    The north/south magnetic poles stop accelerating, slow down, stabilize and Earth’s dipole magnetic field begins to strengthen. Faster rotation stronger dipole field. This also a implies a stronger/larger/longer lasting planetary vortex, which will push cold air towards the equator. We saw the battle last winter. For this planet, an established atmospheric pattern, of old.

    On the other hand over the solar cycle period from 1910 to 1999 we saw an increasing trend toward declining magnetic field strength at Earth with an erratic and accelerating north magnetic pole.
    Slower rotation..
    Rotational forces from Earth’s equator showing incremental domination over its polar rotational forces. This brought more northward moving currents and air.
    Not to mention the dayside reconnection rate incrementally increasing over the same period contributing to that slow down (dayside cusps) geesh..

    Increasing solar magnetic cycle, declining earth magnetic field.
    Decreasing solar magnetic cycle, increasing earth magnetic field.

    Earth’s dipole magnetic field is related to rotation rate.
    I think the sun’s dipole field strength is related to it’s polar rotation rate also.

  53. Willis Eschenbach says:

    “Actually, in the dataset that it appears that they used (they don’t actually specify but this agrees completely with Fig. 1), the shortest cycle was 1610.”

    I would take that with a pinch of salt, the start date of the following cycle could easily be a year later. The records are not very clear back that far.

    “I probably should look at a scatter plot of strength vs length …”

    There’s no SSN info previous to cycle -1:

    http://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/sdb/ydb/indices_flux_raw/sunspot.maxmin.tbl

  54. I really, really, really do not need anyone to discredit this study. I’ve been stockpiling several varieties of whiskys for years now in anticipation of an ice age. I anticipate getting the ice to drink all that with for little or no cost, either monetary or energy. No Ice Age means I have to pay for the ice. Not the scenario I’ve plugged into.

  55. New findings on the effect of Earth’s rotational capability. Earth rotation, playing all the way out, to the radiation belts. Gee, we barely understand the effects close to the surface..

    Rotationally driven ‘zebra stripes’ in Earth’s inner radiation belt

    Published online 19 March 2014
    A. Y. Ukhorskiy, M. I. Sitnov, D. G. Mitchell,
    K. Takahashi, L. J. Lanzerotti & B. H. Mauk

    Structured features on top of nominally smooth distributions of radiation-belt particles at Earth have been previously associated with particle acceleration and transport mechanisms powered exclusively by enhanced solar-wind activity1, 2, 3, 4. Although planetary rotation is considered to be important for particle acceleration at Jupiter and Saturn5, 6, 7, 8, 9, the electric field produced in the inner magnetosphere by Earth’s rotation can change the velocity of trapped particles by only about 1–2 kilometres per second, so rotation has been thought inconsequential for radiation-belt electrons with velocities of about 100,000 kilometres per second. Here we report that the distributions of energetic electrons across the entire spatial extent of Earth’s inner radiation belt are organized in regular, highly structured and unexpected ‘zebra stripes’, even when the solar-wind activity is low. Modelling reveals that the patterns are produced by Earth’s rotation….

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v507/n7492/abs/nature13046.html#figures

  56. Willis Eschenbach says:
    June 14, 2014 at 5:30 pm (replying to)

    Ulric Lyons says:
    June 14, 2014 at 5:19 pm

    Interesting to see that the shortest cycle was in the 1690′s, the coldest part of the Maunder Minimum: http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1364682612000417-gr1.jpg

    Actually, in the dataset that it appears that they used (they don’t actually specify but this agrees completely with Fig. 1), the shortest cycle was 1610.

    However, given the usual idea of shorter = stronger, it is curious that such a short cycle is in the coldest part of the Maunder Minimum. I probably should look at a scatter plot of strength vs length …

    OK.

    Then,
    (1) assuming you can assign “something” discrete to an end-of-cycle n-1, start of cycle n, end of cycle n, start of cycle n+1 dates (maybe odd/even values? ) then
    (2) assuming you assign a strength-of-cycle value to ??? (maybe total number of sunspots in the cycle (between the cycle start and cycle end dates ?)
    then your question could become very, very interesting:
    Is the total number of spots/cycle about the same?
    Is the total number of spots increasing/decreasing/remaining the same as cycle length changes over time?
    Is cycle length changing over time?
    Are the odd number cycles changing (length, total, or maximum/minimum) over time?
    Are the even number cycles changing?

    ‘Tis interesting that the basics are not known at this time.

  57. Dang … is nothing sacred? Now I find that in fact there is no relationship between cycle length and cycle strength …

    Who knew?

    This is using the SIDC data adjusted per Leif Svalgaard. However, I also ran the analysis using the dataset they used … same result. No significant trend.

    w.

  58. Catherine Ronconi said:

    “Extra energy comes from the higher proportion of UV in total solar irradiance, and the effects thereof. With TSI about constant, more high-energy UV means less lower-energy visible and IR, along with greater insolation, especially of tropical oceans.”

    I don’t think that is a sufficiently large effect since it results in only a tiny change in total energy delivery as Leif often points out.

    That is why I go for an amplification effect involving ozone amounts in the stratosphere and consequent changes in global cloudiness which affects the proportion of all wavelengths from the sun able to enter the oceans.

    “Interesting to see that the shortest cycle was in the 1690′s, the coldest part of the Maunder Minimum: http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1364682612000417-gr1.jpg

    It was only one short sharp cycle amongst many much longer cycles. It has already been noted that a single cycle has little effect on its own. A run of long or short cycles is required to allow the effect to build up in the oceans over time. The effect of a single cycle is also largely swamped by inherent chaotic variability within the system due to the long lag times involved in the ocean thermohaline circulation of 1000 to 1500 years.

    As to why such a short solar cycle was embedded amongst so many very different cycles is another matter.

  59. Willis said:

    “Dang … is nothing sacred? Now I find that in fact there is no relationship between cycle length and cycle strength …Who knew ?”

    Well I knew if one limits one’s consideration to sunspot numbers (taking size into account) because one gets a similar figure for less sunspots over a long period as for more sunspots over a shorter period.

    That is why I’ve pinned my ideas to a change in UV wavelengths and solar particles rather then sunspots. We see them change much more over the course of a single cycle and even more across multiple cycles of longer or shorter lengths.

    Then there is the amplification factor of global cloudiness changes to consider.

  60. Carla asked:

    “What would a incremental increase in Earth’s rotation rate, have on the tropospheric height between the equator and poles have?”

    Probably some, but how much relative to the ozone distribution in the stratosphere ?

    Given that the presence of that ozone is the cause of a tropopause in the first place I would not give a large weight to a tiny change in rotation speed.

  61. From Willis Eschenbach onJune 14, 2014 at 5:30 pm

    Actually, in the dataset that it appears that they used (they don’t actually specify but this agrees completely with Fig. 1), the shortest cycle was 1610.

    I wanted to see what the data sources were due to the early SSN data. Table didn’t say, so I took a shot and backed up the URL.

    Directory shows last modification date of sunspot.maxmin.tbl was 18-Jun-1997. So it was already nearly fifteen years old when used for the paper, if this is that information. I couldn’t find any files related to it so still don’t know the sources. Given the changes to historical solar data and the different reconstructions in just recent years, and without verifiable sources, I wouldn’t touch it.

    This file appears to be forgotten, along with some others, lost on the server, orphaned. In the directory view, if you click on “docs” you’ll find identical copies. Doesn’t look like anyone is paying attention.

  62. Pamela,

    Without the temperature inversion at the tropopause caused by ozone heating convection would often continue rising beyong the current level of the tropopause because uplift continues adiabatically once an air parcel leaves the surface.

    Once detached from the ground a warmed parcel of air will keep rising without addition of more energy until stopped by an inversion layer or the force of gravity.

    It is true that convection is initiated from below and the warmer the surface the stronger the uplift and the more it will push the tropopause up but on Earth the ozone created temperature inversion is the limiting factor as you can see from the spreading out of storm cloud anvils.

    Those clouds would have gone even higher but the ‘lid’ provided by the temperature inversion forces energy sideways instead.

    So it is ozone in the stratosphere that creates the tropopause but convection from below helps to determine its height regionally. Stronger convection and greater height being above the equator.

  63. Also, Pamela, the temperature of the stratosphere affects tropopause height just as much as the surface temperature beneath it.

    More ozone warms the stratosphere which forces the tropopause height downward against the upward force of convective uplift.

    So, to my mind the balance of the ozone destruction process within the stratosphere at differing heights and latitudes is critical to the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles.

    What seems to happen for climate change is that an acive sun leads to a colder stratosphere above the poles relative to that above the equator with more positive polar vortices and more poleward zonal jets whiich decreases global cloudiness to allow a warming system.

    The opposite for a quiet sun.

    That scenario fits observations very well.

  64. “””””…..latecommer2014 says:

    June 13, 2014 at 8:46 pm

    Speaking of lag time, I often wonder how much of today’s CO2 is a result of the medieval warm period . The lag numbers are close (600 – 800 yrs ago) but I have found no studies based on this possibility……”””””

    Well that “possibility” has been posted here countless times, as a direct result of MY personal studies of the matter.

    Those “studies” consist of reading papers, on ice core data, including AlGore book graphs, and noting a roughly 800 year lag from Temp change to CO2 change, suggested by those proxy data, and then applying common sense, that 800 years ago was the MLP. And guess what; the LIA followed the MWP.

  65. “””””…..Carla says:

    June 14, 2014 at 5:57 pm

    Stephen Wilde says:

    June 14, 2014 at 12:16 pm
    Changes in solar activity levels appear to alter the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles so as to change global cloudiness and affect the proportion of solar energy that enters the oceans to drive the climate system.
    ———————————————————————-

    What would a incremental increase in Earth’s rotation rate, have on the tropospheric height between the equator and poles have?……””””””

    Well in the time frame of the recent rate of adding leap seconds, the precision of atomic clocks, has increased by several orders of magnitude, making short term rotation rates easier to measure.

    But if you look at how seldom, leap seconds are added, you can conclude that the effect on earth climate would be about as much as flushing your toilet twice would have on next month’s surfing contest in Hawaii.

  66. @ Stephen and pamela
    Gravity is weak electromagnetism at work and convection is a weak conduction process. The Tropopause is a layer of strong conduction and moves air towards the poles. What holds it in place is electromagnetic oscillation. As positive and negative ions form by either gaining or loosing an electron . Positive charge ions (aerosols) are drawn to the strong negative charged core and negative charge is repelled away from the surface we call this negative charge heat and the driver for conduction. Look up how radio waves propagate and you’ll get the picture.

  67. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    June 14, 2014 at 7:09 pm
    Kadaka, you are too kind. It appears that Mr Eschenbach is willfully spreading misinformation. Of course they (Solheim et al) didn’t use that old NASA table. It doesn’t include Solar Cycle 23. He created a strawman and then knocked it down. Regarding that old NASA table, I don’t believe any of it prior to about 1700. Sunspot records start from about 1640 and the sunspot activity died off in the Maunder Minimum. You can make a stab at solar cycles in the Maunder using C14 levels and that suggests cycles were about 18 years long. The particularly cold decade of the 1690s was associated with a Be10 spike indicating a solar cause. The Be10 spike may have been an overprinting of already low solar activity.

  68. jmorpuss says:
    June 14, 2014 at 9:16 pm

    @ Stephen and pamela
    Gravity is weak electromagnetism at work …

    BZZZZT! Next contestant, please …

    w.

  69. From David Archibald on June 14, 2014 at 9:26 pm:

    Kadaka, you are too kind. It appears that Mr Eschenbach is willfully spreading misinformation.

    Not a good accusation to make, not at all. Willis is a straight shooter. When you Google for info you find matches without context, that nevertheless look authoritative just from the address, and it is a NASA table. “Willfully” is excessive, this doesn’t override “reasonable doubt”.

  70. @ Willis one to many Z’s there
    Just saying I’m wrong means nothing except it’s your opinion . Try looking at some of Bob Tinsley’s work on cosmic ray’s and point charge. I think E=MC squared works no matter the size , it works at a nano level size as well as at a planetary size .

  71. David Archibald says:
    June 14, 2014 at 9:26 pm

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    June 14, 2014 at 7:09 pm
    Kadaka, you are too kind. It appears that Mr Eschenbach is willfully spreading misinformation.

    David, I checked the data in the table against the data they used. It appears that they used that data, and have extended it to simply include the most recent cycle.

    As to “willfully spreading misinformation”, I try to avoid making such accusations as to motive. Heck, I often don’t know what my own motives are, and many folks report the same.

    However, I can assure you of two things.

    The first is, I never willfully spread misinformation. I do my utmost to tell the truth as I know it.

    And the second is, a man who makes such an accusation against me without first asking me to explain what I’ve said is a man devoid of both courtesy and honor.

    Of course they (Solheim et al) didn’t use that old NASA table. It doesn’t include Solar Cycle 23. He created a strawman and then knocked it down.

    Here’s what I actually said, which of course you’ve neglected to quote:

    Actually, in the dataset that it appears that they used (they don’t actually specify but this agrees completely with Fig. 1), …

    If you’d asked, I would have explained that they said in the paper itself that they used the NOAA minmax data, viz:

    NGDC solardata 2011 at /ftp://ftp.ngdc.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUM
    BERS/INTERNATIONAL/maxmin/MAXMINS.

    Unfortunately, the NGDC appears to have reorganized its dataset since then, so I couldn’t locate the latest version. So I used an earlier version, and I updated for the last cycle using their own number from Fig.1. More to the point, I clearly stated that it APPEARS that that was the data that they used. And as near as I can tell, it was.

    So that’s the explanation, and if you’d evinced even a modicum of common decency, you would have asked for it before making your sleazy untrue accusation of willful misconduct. I did not erect a straw man. I used the numbers that they used, as best as I could tell. If you can show that they used different numbers, bring it on.

    Regarding that old NASA table, I don’t believe any of it prior to about 1700.

    And we should care why? Because of your willingness to make unsupported accusations?

    David, let me request that you cut down on the accusations and that you increase the requests for explanations. Accusing an honest man of being deceptive hurts your reputation, not the other man’s. People know that I’m a jerk … but they also know that I’m an honest jerk. Next time, just ask for an explanation first.

    w.

  72. jmorpuss says:
    June 14, 2014 at 10:13 pm

    @ Willis one to many Z’s there
    Just saying I’m wrong means nothing except it’s your opinion .

    Thanks, jmorpuss. No, it means that you’ve made an extraordinary claim, which is your bald assertion of your opinion that “Gravity is weak electromagnetism at work”, without the slightest attempt to back up said opinion with facts, citations, logic, math or anything at all.

    In other words, the problem is not my opinion …

    w.

  73. Stephen Wilde says:
    June 14, 2014 at 7:01 pm

    Willis said:

    “Dang … is nothing sacred? Now I find that in fact there is no relationship between cycle length and cycle strength …Who knew ?”

    Well I knew if one limits one’s consideration to sunspot numbers (taking size into account) because one gets a similar figure for less sunspots over a long period as for more sunspots over a shorter period.

    Huh? I compared cycle length and cycle strength. You seem to be comparing total sunspots over a cycle, saying less per year for more years is the same as more per year for less years.

    But that’s opposite to what I found. Your way is the way people claim it is, where shorter cycles have stronger peaks, and longer cycles have lower peaks.

    I found no such relationship, so it’s not working the way you seem to think.

    w.

  74. @ Willis I always take something positive away from your posts but get lost when you start to reference models. You can always use make-up to dress up a model and make it look better then they really are . You may be trust worthy but the data you use may be corrupt . Mans been geoengineering the planet for ages whether it’s spraying the atmosphere or using Atlant techniques to seed clouds they all must corrupt the data you use to some extent .

  75. jmorpuss says:
    June 14, 2014 at 11:31 pm

    @ Willis I always take something positive away from your posts but get lost when you start to reference models.

    Thanks, jmorpuss. Please quote my words if you expect a response. I have no idea what you mean by “when [ I ] start to reference models”. Where am I referencing models?

    w.

  76. Current data are.

    Nevertheless, satellites detected high sea ice concentrations over the Arctic as a whole. This contrasts with 2006, 2007, and 2012 when broad areas of low-concentration ice were observed.
    As the melt season is underway in the Arctic, freeze up is in progress in the Antarctic. Sea ice extent for May averaged 12.03 million square kilometers (4.64 million square miles). This is 1.24 million square kilometers (478,800 square miles) above the 1981 to 2010 average for the month. Antarctic sea ice for May 2014 currently ranks as the highest May extent in the satellite record.

  77. From Willis Eschenbach on June 14, 2014 at 10:45 pm:

    If you’d asked, I would have explained that they said in the paper itself that they used the NOAA minmax data, viz:

    NGDC solardata 2011 at /ftp://ftp.ngdc.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUM
    BERS/INTERNATIONAL/maxmin/MAXMINS.

    Unfortunately, the NGDC appears to have reorganized its dataset since then, so I couldn’t locate the latest version. (…)

    Found it! Directory: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-indices/sunspot-numbers/international/tables/

    Select “table_international-sunspot-numbers_yearly.txt”. Compare to “table_international-sunspot-numbers_monthly.txt”. Monthly starts at 1749. Yearly starts at 1700 but is whole numbers through 1748, yearly also has max/min years indicated.

    New______ Old
    Max_ Min_ Max___ Min
    1750 1755 1750.3 1755.2
    1761 1766 1761.5 1766.5
    1769 1775 1769.7 1775.5
    1778 1784 1778.4 1784.7
    1787 1798 1788.1 1798.3
    1804 1810 1805.2 1810.6
    1816 1823 1816.4 1823.3
    1830 1833 1829.9 1833.9
    1837 1843 1837.2 1843.5
    1848 1856 1848.1 1856.0
    1860 1867 1860.1 1867.2
    1870 1878 1870.6 1878.9
    1883 1889 1883.9 1889.6
    1893 1901 1894.1 1901.7
    1905 1913 1907.0 1913.6
    1917 1923 1917.6 1923.6
    1928 1933 1928.4 1933.8
    1937 1944 1937.4 1944.2
    1947 1954 1947.5 1954.3
    1957 1964 1957.9 1964.9
    1968 1976 1968.9 1976.5
    1979 1986 1979.9 1986.8
    1989 1996 1989.6
    2000

    I don’t think the questionable numbers from the old table can be simply rounded off to match the new ones. New yearly means were the average of the monthly means through 1944 to the average of the daily means since 1945. Old numbers look like they came from running means of some sort. But I could add 0.5 to the new for alignment for comparisons.

    Which means the old has a 1907.0 max where the new has a 1905.5 max. They’re different enough to not trust the old.

  78. Willis Eschenbach says:
    June 14, 2014 at 10:59 pm

    Well it is true that short cycles can have low peaks and long cycles have high peaks but I was suggesting total sunspots over the whole cycle taking into account sunspot sizes.

    I’m sure I recall Leif saying that the totals came out much the same regardless of cycle length as part of his contention that there was only a minimal energy delivery variation between long and short or strong and weak cycles.

  79. “kim says:
    June 13, 2014 at 7:26 pm
    Dang, I wanted a big clue to mechanism. Maybe it’s in the hemispherical asymmetry of the sunspots.”

    The Earth ALSO has a magnetic field. I suspect that there may be slight differences in weather patters depending on whether the Sun’s and Earth’s magnetic fields are aligned or 180 degrees out of alignment.

  80. it has been cooling significantly in Alaska, at a rate of -0.55K per decade since 1998 (Average of ten weather stations).

    That is almost one whole degree C since 1998.

  81. Alan McIntire says:…depending on whether the Sun’s and Earth’s magnetic fields are aligned or 180 degrees out of alignment.

    calculations show: on decadal scale: + 0.1 C warming when in phase, – 0.1 C when out of phase, building up to ~ + 0.3 C or – 0.3 C approximately every 30 or so years ( AMO semi-cycle )

  82. Willis Eschenbach says:
    June 14, 2014 at 6:41 pm

    “Dang … is nothing sacred? Now I find that in fact there is no relationship between cycle length and cycle strength …”

    The solar cycle lengths that you have indicated on you chart:

    seem to bear no resemblance to the real cycle lengths:

    http://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/sdb/ydb/indices_flux_raw/sunspot.maxmin.tbl

    E.g. the cycle centered at 1705 is 14yrs long not 11.5, and the one at 1778 is 9.2yrs and not 13.6yrs long. They all appear to be incorrect on your plot.

    A big problem with the paper here is the long solar cycle at 1705, according to their theory it should be cooling through the following cycle, which is not the case.

  83. @vukcevik
    nice graph there on precipitation
    note my results for rainfall in Potchefstroom (South Africa)
    (average in mm/yr)

    1927-1950 611.7
    1951-1971 587
    1972-1995 596.1
    1996-2013 641.2

    (100% correlation on hyperbolic binomial)
    predicted
    1904-1927 ca. 587
    2017-2039 ca. 596

  84. Willis, I see what you have done, you have use the the maximum date for each cycle, but plotted that against the cycle length of the following cycle.

  85. Stephen Wilde says:
    “It was only one short sharp cycle amongst many much longer cycles. It has already been noted that a single cycle has little effect on its own.”

    No the previous cycle was fairly short too (1685), and the shortness runs contrary to typical ideas regarding the length of cycles versus the strength. And are you proposing that the weaker SC20 on its own is irrelevant ?

  86. From Ulric Lyons on June 15, 2014 at 6:13 am:

    The solar cycle lengths that you have indicated on you chart:
    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/sunspot-count-vs-cycle-length.jpg?w=840
    seem to bear no resemblance to the real cycle lengths:
    http://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/sdb/ydb/indices_flux_raw/sunspot.maxmin.tbl
    E.g. the cycle centered at 1705 is 14yrs long not 11.5, and the one at 1778 is 9.2yrs and not 13.6yrs long. They all appear to be incorrect on your plot.

    If you look at my relevant previous comments, you’ll see why you should stop using that old table. My most previous comment links to the new version, which is basically taking the SIDC yearly numbers and picking the highs and lows of the yearly means.

    At SIDC (now WDC-SILSO), click on “Yearly mean total sunspot number [1700 - now]” “Info” to see:

    (NB: in early years in particular before 1749, the means are computed on only a fraction of the days in each year because on many days, no observation is available).

    Use at your own risk, incomplete data, educated guess. Note 1700-1748 are whole numbers, later they report tenths.

    Thus the “cycle centered at 1705″ is a loss as there is no minimum given before 1705 thus the cycle length is missing an endpoint, and that’s in a questionable range anyway.

  87. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 15, 2014 at 6:13 am

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    June 14, 2014 at 6:41 pm

    “Dang … is nothing sacred? Now I find that in fact there is no relationship between cycle length and cycle strength …”

    The solar cycle lengths that you have indicated on you chart:

    seem to bear no resemblance to the real cycle lengths:

    Thanks for checking my work, Ulric. Indeed, they were off a year, as you pointed out in a later comment. Moving too fast. The conclusion doesn’t change. There is a non-significant trend in the direction of shorter = stronger, but with a p-value of 0.15, it’s still just as meaningless.

    I’ve changed the graph, the new figure is below.

    w.

  88. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    June 15, 2014 at 1:33 am

    From Willis Eschenbach on June 14, 2014 at 10:45 pm:

    If you’d asked, I would have explained that they said in the paper itself that they used the NOAA minmax data, viz:

    NGDC solardata 2011 at /ftp://ftp.ngdc.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUM
    BERS/INTERNATIONAL/maxmin/MAXMINS.

    Unfortunately, the NGDC appears to have reorganized its dataset since then, so I couldn’t locate the latest version. (…)

    Found it! Directory: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-indices/sunspot-numbers/international/tables/

    Select “table_international-sunspot-numbers_yearly.txt”. Compare to “table_international-sunspot-numbers_monthly.txt”. Monthly starts at 1749. Yearly starts at 1700 but is whole numbers through 1748, yearly also has max/min years indicated.

    Thanks for that, KD, good find. Unfortunately, they can’t be using that dataset, because it is annual, and their periods are to the nearest month (or at least to the nearest tenth of a year.)

    Best regards, and thanks for the search,

    w.

  89. Willis Eschenbach says:
    June 15, 2014 at 12:10 pm:

    “Thanks for checking my work, Ulric. Indeed, they were off a year, as you pointed out in a later comment. Moving too fast. The conclusion doesn’t change. There is a non-significant trend in the direction of shorter = stronger, but with a p-value of 0.15, it’s still just as meaningless.

    I’ve changed the graph, the new figure is below.”

    Sorry Willis, but you have posted the original chart again. Still moving too fast.

  90. Willis, looking at your graph makes me wonder if this cycle is going to be the equivalent of the 1778 cycle, with the next cycle likely to be a long one.

  91. Willis, and many others, seem bothered by the lack of an 11-year temperature cycle and suggest that this makes a significant role for the sun unlikely. For example:

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    June 14, 2014 at 1:10 am
    Finally, I am inherently suspicious of the claim that there is NO effect from the varying intensity of the ~11-year sunspot/magnetic/solar wind/cosmic ray cycle … but on the other hand there is some big effect from the varying length of the cycles.

    This does not bother me, and it puzzles me that it bothers others.

    May I suggest an analogy: Consider a single-piston engine. The position of the piston in the cylinder varies over cycles, but tells you nothing about the energy output of the engine. Rather, the cycle length is the relevant parameter. The shorter the piston cycles, the more energy output. But there is little (if any) correlation between the energy output and the beginning (bottom of the stroke), middle (top of the stroke) or end (bottom of the next stroke) of the piston cycle (this is probably more true in a multi-cylinder engine). If the engine is in a vehicle, you will also find little or no correlation between the cycle length and the speed of the vehicle. Rather, the correlation would be between cycle length and acceleration. On the other hand, many consecutive short cycles would likely be correlated with higher speed, and many longer cycles wwith lower.

    This is how I conceive of the effects of solar cycles. The position in the cycle tells you nothing of the temperature or even warming/cooling. The shorter, higher energy output cycles cause warming but may not be correlated with warmth (as an accelerating car may be going slow or fast). But, put together a few short cycles and you will see a warming trend, and put together a few long ones, and you will see cooling. And the auto-correlation of cycles makes such strings of short and long cycles more common. The lag in temperature effect also makes perfect sense, as the cycle length does not affect temperature but rate of change of temperature.

    Now, all that said, I do not have the time and no longer have the skills to do the statistics and see whether there is any evidence for this view. I leave that to others. But for starters, I would suggest looking for a correlation between the delta in mean temperatures between cycles N and N+1 and the length of cycle N. In some cases, short cycles will be followed by long and in some cases long will be followed by short. It might therefore be interesting to look only at consecutive cycles with both lengths > 11.5 (or both < 10.5).

    Cheers,
    Michael

  92. Willis Eschenbach,

    There is a relationship between the length of solar cycle minimum and the length of solar maximum.

    During a sunspot cycle from solar minimum to solar minimum for example.
    The ‘intensity’ of the solar maximum sunspot number is currently being obscured by the observation itself, simply by removing the data from context, the sunspot number when averaged removes a very Important detail which is observed more clearly when observed during weaker solar cycles.

    I’ll give you two guess to what this is. Hint: remember, we have had space craft observing the entire sun…

  93. Michael Twomey says:
    June 16, 2014 at 10:14 am

    Willis, and many others, seem bothered by the lack of an 11-year temperature cycle and suggest that this makes a significant role for the sun unlikely. For example:

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    June 14, 2014 at 1:10 am

    Finally, I am inherently suspicious of the claim that there is NO effect from the varying intensity of the ~11-year sunspot/magnetic/solar wind/cosmic ray cycle … but on the other hand there is some big effect from the varying length of the cycles.

    This does not bother me, and it puzzles me that it bothers others.

    May I suggest an analogy: Consider a single-piston engine.

    The sun is a source of energy. The piston engine uses energy. I don’t see the connection between the two, or why it would make any difference to the current question. I simply don’t think that it is a valid analogy.

    w.

  94. Sparks says:
    June 16, 2014 at 6:12 pm

    Willis Eschenbach,

    There is a relationship between the length of solar cycle minimum and the length of solar maximum.

    Since you haven’t defined what you mean by either term, I fear that’s meaningless.

    During a sunspot cycle from solar minimum to solar minimum for example.

    Sorry, that doesn’t compute either.

    The ‘intensity’ of the solar maximum sunspot number is currently being obscured by the observation itself, simply by removing the data from context, the sunspot number when averaged removes a very Important detail which is observed more clearly when observed during weaker solar cycles.

    Nope, another complete miss. I don’t understand what you mean by the “intensity” of a number, or how it could be “obscured by the observation itself”. I don’t know what “very important detail” you’re talking about

    I’ll give you two guess to what this is. Hint: remember, we have had space craft observing the entire sun…

    After that totally impenetrable, obscure, and unclear buildup, I’ll give you one guess as to whether I care “what this is” …

    w.

    PS—I don’t respond well to that kind of pseudo-Socratic “guess what I know and you don’t know” kind of question. If you have a point to make, I don’t have time to faff around guessing what your oh-so-brilliant insights might me. Make your point as clearly and explicitly as possible, or I’m not interested.

  95. The rapid recovery of cosmic-ray intensity following even-numbered cycles leads to the first half of a flat-topped peak, and the relatively sluggish rise of cosmic-ray intensity during the onset of the succeeding odd-numbered cycle further ensures a relatively long time at high cosmic-ray intensity. Conversely, the slow recovery of cosmic-ray intensity following odd-numbered solar cycles and the close correspondence between sunspot number increase and cosmic-ray decrease during the subsequent even-numbered cycle favors a more highly peaked cosmic-ray intensity maximum.

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/551/2/L189/fulltext/

  96. If we combine the data we can expect soon a significant increase in cosmic radiation. We’ll see how the climate will respond after 11 years of high GCR (2006-2017).

  97. I wrote in an article in the Calgary Herald published on September 1, 2002:

    “If (as I believe) solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”

    I hope to be wrong – I am getting old, and tire of the cold…

  98. Willis Eschenbach says:
    June 16, 2014 at 10:41 pm

    Oh Lighten up Willis, are you out of your vulcan mind?

    I’m just teasing you :)

  99. Sparks says:
    June 17, 2014 at 10:24 am

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    June 16, 2014 at 10:41 pm

    Oh Lighten up Willis, are you out of your vulcan mind?

    I’m just teasing you :)

    I see newspaper stories all the time about people who were “just teasing” the lions and grizzly bears at the zoo … “teasing” me is an equally bad idea.

    And on the web, where it’s very hard to tell is someone is serious or not, it’s a really dumb move. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth whether it’s serious or not, because nobody likes to be fooled … is that what you want people to remember about you, a bad taste in the mouth?

    … Oh, wait, I forgot that you’re just a random anonymous internet popup, so you don’t care if you leave a bad taste in peoples mouths because nobody knows it was you …

    Pick another way to amuse yourself, that one is a loser, particularly when you are unwilling to sign your own name to it.

    w.

  100. Willis Eschenbach says:
    June 17, 2014 at 10:57 am

    I’m actually a serious REAL person who is stretched thin at the moment tho who makes the effort to interact and discuss with people about subjects we’re mutually interested in.
    It’s not my fault that we’re not personally acquainted, when have you ever asked me for any personal details about myself, just because I’m reserved, it does not mean that I’m insincere. yes I am bit quirky at times why should that annoy you?

    I’m not an “anonymous pop-up” or what ever you mean by that, I’ve had an online presence for over 20 years, I’ve made a living developing this technology, and I enjoy it.. from reading books about this technology as a kid to enjoying it now as an adult by poking self-confessed grizzly bears with a big stick, You can beat it.

    So take my advice, lighten up and I’ll speak to you Tomato Willis.
    All the best :)

  101. Sparks says:
    June 17, 2014 at 12:20 pm

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    June 17, 2014 at 10:57 am

    I’m actually a serious REAL person who is stretched thin at the moment tho who makes the effort to interact and discuss with people about subjects we’re mutually interested in.

    Not on the internet you’re not. Real people have names, and thus have to stand behind their words. Here, you are a random anonymous popup.

    It’s not my fault that we’re not personally acquainted, when have you ever asked me for any personal details about myself, just because I’m reserved, it does not mean that I’m insincere. yes I am bit quirky at times why should that annoy you?

    I’m not an “anonymous pop-up” or what ever you mean by that, I’ve had an online presence for over 20 years, I’ve made a living developing this technology, and I enjoy it.. from reading books about this technology as a kid to enjoying it now as an adult by poking self-confessed grizzly bears with a big stick, You can beat it.

    Let me see if I have this right. You’re not an anonymous random internet popup who can deny his words at any time, and disappear and never have to take responsibility for what he has said.

    Instead you’re a long-time anonymous random internet popup who can deny his words at any time, and disappear and never have to take responsibility for what he has said.

    OK, I think I’ve got it.

    So take my advice, lighten up and I’ll speak to you Tomato Willis.
    All the best :)

    I have a long-time rule, Sparks, or whatever your name is. I never, ever take advice on morality, ethics, or lightening up from a man who is unwilling to sign his own opinions and stand behind them. Sorry, but that’s the price you pay for not having what it takes to own your own words.

    Since you obviously think so little of your opinions that you are unwilling to sign them, and you can walk away and disown them without loss or consequence … why on earth should I rate your ideas any higher than you do?

    Finally, when a man says “Do X and I’ll speak to you”, generally, that’s a clue that I should stop doing X, or else he might actually make good on his threat …

    w.

  102. Willis Eschenbach says:
    June 17, 2014 at 1:25 pm

    If you continue the aggressive behaviour towards me Willis I will continue to roll up paper balls at the back of the class to hit you with.

  103. Willis,

    For what reason do you need to know details about myself? I’m not a public figure, if there is anything that you would like to know about me you should try asking!

    I have thick skin so to speak, your insults don’t bother me, I appreciate your candid replies tho.

  104. Sparks says:
    June 17, 2014 at 2:42 pm

    Willis,

    For what reason do you need to know details about myself? I’m not a public figure, if there is anything that you would like to know about me you should try asking!

    Dear heavens, my writing must be getting really bad. Let me set your mind at ease. I have absolutely no desire to know a single detail about you. Please, I beg you, do not tell me any details. Is that clear?

    I’m just pointing out that when you are a random anonymous internet popup, you give up your right to lecture me on ethics and morals. I don’t take advice from people who are unwilling to sign their name to their words, I just point and laugh. If you want your words taken seriously, first you have to take them seriously enough to sign them.

    But I don’t want details, Sparks. I’m just letting you know, that’s the price you have to pay if you want to be anonymous. If a woman/child/man/Turing test like you chooses to be anonymous, your word regarding ethics or morality carry no weight, for all of the obvious reasons. For all we know, you’re a precocious 14-year-old posting when Mom’s back is turned.

    w.

  105. It’s simple Sparks. I’m not anybody either. Yet I use my real name, first and last.

    Lots of people read WUWT. I don’t flatter myself that all that many people pay all that much attention to my comments. But because of the number of people who read, I don’t spout off lightly. I think carefully about what I’m ready to say for the record and stand by it. In other words, it imposes a certain amount of personal responsibility. I can just disappear from WUWT whenever I want to, but the internet has a long memory, and my name will be with me forever. Because of the personal responsibility involved, people can therefore take me seriously when I say something, in the sense that I’m serious enough about what I’m saying to stand by my words openly.

    Think it through. If it’s not worth standing openly by whatever you have to say with your real name, why is it worth it to speak at all? That’s how I view it anyway.

  106. Willis Eschenbach says:
    June 17, 2014 at 3:39 pm

    If you don’t know who I am or even don’t want to know, how does that make me anonymous, I’ve used “Sparks” for years and the e-mail addresses accounts etc are all linked to me. Is there a reason I should use my full name? or are you playing the authoritative troll here.

    I’m a reasonable honest person, behind “Sparks” and for all of the obvious reasons I shall throw another paper ball at you.

    :)

  107. Mark Bofill says:
    June 17, 2014 at 4:16 pm

    I do use my real name, the persona or pen name “Sparks” is the only one I have ever used, The name and opinion “Mark Bofill” is every bit anonymous to me as Willis Eschenbach is, I know who Anthony Watts is because I like his work and I enjoy the subjects and discussions here on his site, but do Know him? I would have to say no. Do I like him I’d say he’s not the worst looking guy I’ve ever met. lol

  108. Mark Bofill says:
    June 17, 2014 at 4:16 pm

    I do use my real name, the persona or pen name “Sparks” is the only one I have ever used, The name and opinion of “Mark Bofill” is every bit anonymous to me as “Willis Eschenbach” is, I know who Anthony Watts is because I like his work and I enjoy the subjects and discussions here on his site, but do I Know him? I would have to say no. Do I like him? I would have to say that he’s not the worst looking guy I’ve ever met. lol

    Ver 2.0

  109. Sparks, if you want to be deliberately dense, knock yourself out. You can drop the persona or pen name ‘sparks’ anytime you want to, and nobody will trace it to you. I can’t drop my real name. Mark Bofill, Anthony Watts, and Willis Eschenbach are not anonymous references. We have telephones, residences, so on. A determined researcher would find it far easier to locate me than you, for example.
    If you don’t believe in what you’re saying strongly enough to identify yourself, that’s your business. Pretending that a persona or pen name is no different from a real name is something I find offensive, frankly. You take no risk and assume no responsibility where I do, so spare me.

  110. Mark Bofill,

    It’s your problem not mine.

    I am who I am and if you don’t like it you can take a long walk of a short plank.

    Best regards ~Sparks

  111. No Sparks, I neither like nor dislike … that you are who you are? Profound, that.

    I’ve got about as much use for rodents like yourself as Willis apparently does. I’ve wasted enough time gabbing with you. Maybe I’ll pay attention to you again someday if you grow a pair of testicles.

  112. Mark Bofill,

    What’s your phone number Mark? I’ll ring you right now and we can discuss your insults.

    • RE the Bofill-Sparks Prize Fight.

      The fight is over, Bofill wins by virtue of the fact that he stands behind his name where “Sparks” does not.

      Future responses from either party on this fight in this thread go straight to the bit bucket.

  113. Sparks says:
    June 17, 2014 at 5:51 pm

    Mark Bofill,

    It’s your problem not mine.

    I am who I am and if you don’t like it you can take a long walk of a short plank.

    Best regards ~Sparks

    Sparks, I neither like nor do I dislike who you are, because I have no idea who you are other than someone lacking the courage to stand behind your words. As Mark pointed out, he and I and Anthony have to live with what we write.

    As a result, we can’t pull your tricks. You can insult anyone you want, and your friends and neighbors will neither know nor ever find out what you’ve said. You can lie about anything without consequence. So you can say any damn thing you want.

    Honest men and women, those of us who do stand behind our words, don’t have your luxury of being able to disown what we say. Our friends and neighbors can read and comment about what we say. And our words can “come back to haunt us”, as they say, while your words never can. You can turn and run away from them any time you want.

    I fear I can’t properly express my contempt for your actions. Not for the fact that you are posting anonymously. That’s fine if that’s what you want to do, and lots of folks do it. It’s a choice that everyone has to make, and if you choose to post anonymously, you choose the loss of credibility that goes with it. I have no problem with that or the folks that do it.

    What is beneath contempt is your claim that posting anonymously is equal to taking responsibility for your words by signing them. That’s just insulting to the women and men who have the courage that you lack, and bravely doing so from the complete safety of your anonymity. Or as the Python said:

    Brave Sir Robin ran away.
    (“No!”)
    Bravely ran away away.
    (“I didn’t!”)
    When danger reared it’s ugly head,
    He bravely turned his tail and fled.
    (“no!”)
    Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
    (“I didn’t!”)
    And gallantly he chickened out.

    ****Bravely**** taking (“I never did!”) to his feet,
    He beat a very brave retreat.
    (“all lies!”)
    Bravest of the braaaave, Sir Robin!
    (“I never!”)

    I guess poor Sir Robin should have taken a lesson from you, and been the bravest of the braaaave anonymice …

    In any case, Sparks, you win. I don’t mind anonymity, although I’d prefer it if people were honest about who they are.

    But your combination of anonymity, arrogance, ignorance, and immaturity is too much for me. I’m done with you.

    w.

Comments are closed.